It feels like every week for as long as I’ve been writing about cars, someone’s asked me what new compact crossover they should buy. The answer, if they didn’t want or need hybrid efficiency, was almost always a Mazda CX-5. Throughout its first two generations, it’s been nicer than a Toyota RAV4, a bit less expensive than a Toyota RAV4, and carried a remarkably solid track record of reliability. With frequent incentives and subvented financing, it was where the smart money went. For these reasons, and my recommendation, there are now five CX-5s in my extended family. If you put your granddad and multiple aunts in essentially the same car, it had better be good. Otherwise, it’s your head on the line, and they’ll bring up gripes every Thanksgiving. So far, so good, but for the third-generation model, though, things have changed slightly.
The CX-5 still uses the same proven powertrain as before, and it’s roomier than ever, but a series of decisions have cheapened the model and made many secondary controls more difficult to operate. Is it still shortlistable? Definitely. But is it something I’d recommend to just go ahead and buy? Not anymore. Let’s get into why.
[Full disclosure: I tested this Mazda CX-5 as part of pre-voting proceedings for Canadian Car of the Year voting, a process that I’m deeply involved in. I’m on the board of directors for the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada which facilitates Canadian Car of the Year, along with the Canadian Car of the Year committee, and I want to disclose this in full transparency to give context to the day of testing cars I took part in. The vehicle itself was supplied by Mazda Canada, but the opinions expressed here are purely my own. Plus, I drove up to the test day and paid for my own fuel to get there.]
The Basics
Engine: 2.5-liter naturally aspirated twin-cam inline-four.
Transmission: Six-speed conventional automatic.
Drive: Full-time all-wheel-drive.
Output: 187 horsepower at 6,000 RPM, 186 lb.-ft. at 4,000 RPM.
Curb Weight: 3,856 pounds (1,749 kg).
Fuel Economy: 24 MPG city, 30 MPG highway, 26 MPG combined (9.9 L/100km city, 7.9 L/100km highway, 9.0 L/100km combined).
Fuel Grade: Regular 87-octane.
Base Price: $31,585 including freight ($39,290 in Canada).
Price As-Tested: $41,180 including freight ($50,190 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
The compact crossover is now simply the default shape for a car, and for the past 14 years, Mazda has campaigned in this red-hot segment with a model known as the CX-5. Now in its third generation for 2026, it’s still taking direct aim at models like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage, Subaru Forester, Volkswagen Tiguan, Nissan Rogue, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Ford Bronco Sport … you get the picture.
How Does It Look?
If the new Mazda CX-5 looks bulkier than the old one, that’s because it is. To meet demands for extra space, Mazda’s stretched the wheelbase and overall length by 4.5 inches, widened the body by eight-tenths of an inch, increased overall length by 5.5 inches, and raised the silhouette by six-tenths of an inch. The end result from a visual standpoint is more surfacing to fill, and Mazda’s trying something new.
A smaller shield-shaped grille sits within a wider outer bezel that joins both of the L-shaped headlights. The front valence has been stretched out by additional detailing, the wheel arch trims now feature little bumps to break up their semi-circularity, and a diagonal character line on each front door adds a fin-shaped surface that attempts to cheat the dash-to-axle ratio. Around back, a more upright hatch features a Mazda wordmark instead of the brand’s logo. Add it all up, and it’s not quite as sharp as the looks of the old model, but still one of the better-looking compact crossovers on sale.
What About The Interior?
Slide behind the wheel of the new CX-5, and in typical Mazda fashion, you’ll be greeted by a mix of largely nice materials. Stitched textiles across the dashboard and door cards, satin accents on the air vents and center console, matte plastics instead of high-gloss surfaces, and wonderfully smooth leather on the steering wheel and shift knob. However, there’s a whiff of cost-cutting compared to the previous generation model. The tops of the door cards are no longer clad in the same soft-touch material, for instance. Still, a split console armrest is an unusual luxury for this class of car, the front seats are properly comfortable, and there’s more headroom on tap than in any CX-5 before.
Moving to the rear seat, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, there’s more room back here than ever, and the optional panoramic moonroof really lets some extra light into the cabin. On the other hand, the squab for the middle seat is rock-hard and was already displaying some quality control concerns on my low-mileage production-spec test car. The leather had gone all lumpy, feeling as if it was actually separating from its backing material.
Speaking of separation, the build quality of the A-pillar tweeter pods really doesn’t inspire confidence. Not only do they fit poorly within the jamb, but the fascia of the driver’s side assembly isn’t held to the back panel particularly well. This can result in the unsightly panel gap seen in the photo above, and a relative lack of solidity means trying to clip it back down is best done with a light touch, and it may still not sit properly. Is this a minor detail in the grand scheme of things? Sure, but I haven’t seen this issue on any other model of compact crossover, and how these assemblies fare in the long term is anyone’s guess at this point.
On the other hand, you do get an extra 4.6 cu.-ft. of cargo volume with the seats up compared to the old CX-5, with the new figure clocking in at 33.7 cu.-ft. which is a few cubic feet less than a RAV4 but several cu.-ft. more than in a Subaru Forester. A 40:20:40 split-folding rear seat facilitates through-loading of long items even with four occupants aboard, and a flush load lip makes sliding cargo in and out a breeze.
How Does It Drive?
Mercifully, Mazda’s sticking with what it knows under the hood of the new CX-5. While rivals like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Volkswagen Tiguan offer brawnier standard engines than the CX-5’s 186-horsepower naturally aspirated 2.5-liter unit, this familiar inline-four has a fairly solid track record of reliability and comes hitched to a well-programmed conventional six-speed automatic. It might not be the most efficient powertrain on the market or imbue the CX-5 with particularly swift acceleration, but it’s plenty refined enough and should soldier on for the long haul. Figure zero-to-60 MPH in a shade over eight seconds.
As for ride and handling, this is where the CX-5 excels. The spring and damper tuning’s beautifully judged, offering excellent control without coming across as harsh. Accurate, natural, beautifully-weighted steering makes placement on the road a cinch, and there’s real confidence when the road gets bendy. Mazda’s mainstream compact crossover is still the varsity athlete of the class, the deftest at managing its 3,856-pound curb weight while providing genuinely car-like handling. Even though “Zoom-Zoom” was more than a decade ago, some of that spirit clearly lives on in the chassis tuning department.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Yes and no. Load a CX-5 up to the gills and you’ll get just about every gizmo you could want in a compact crossover. Heated and ventilated power front seats, a heated steering wheel, a panoramic moonroof, a Bose sound system, a 360-degree camera system that even works with the mirrors folded, heated rear seats, leather upholstery, a programmable power liftgate, a front wiper de-icer, a head-up display, and a full brace of driver assistance features. However, to use a bunch of technology aboard, Mazda’s relying heavily on touchscreen infotainment, and here’s where the problems start. Not only does the screen house virtually all the climate controls, but it can be agonizingly laggy at times, even with the top-spec 15.6-inch display. This could be sidestepped with enough redundant controls, but real buttons are few and far between, making operation of secondary functions a hassle.
Let’s start with a simple task: Turning up (or down) the stereo volume. Mazda has included steering-wheel mounted audio controls, but they aren’t arranged optimally. I wear a size-large nitrile glove, but even still, it’s a stretch to the steering wheel-mounted volume switch. If you have smaller hands, you’ll probably go reaching for a volume knob somewhere in the center stack, only to find that Mazda’s left it off entirely.
Instead, the central volume control’s been relegated to the passenger side of the touchscreen’s bottom menu, and it’s not programmed particularly well. The virtual tile for volume is relatively small, and while the CX-5 lets you swipe to increase or decrease volume, the touch input isn’t damped adequately. It’s possible to crank the volume through moving your finger by mere millimeters, so if you go over a bump while adjusting the volume, it might end up absolutely blaring or completely silent. That’s annoying.
Guess what also ended up on the touchscreen? That’s right, controls for the heated seats and heated steering wheel, and not only are they in a sub-menu, but you’ll need fingers like cocktail sticks to touch the skinny little bar that brings up said sub-menu. Once you’re in the sub-menu, the virtual tiles for the heated seats and heated steering wheel are also minuscule, rendering the whole affair hopeless if you’re wearing (touchscreen-compatible) winter gloves.
Three Things To Know About The 2026 Mazda CX-5
- There’s no volume knob anymore.
- Parts of the infotainment are harder to use than the old knob-based system.
- It still drives wonderfully.
Does The 2026 Mazda CX-5 Fulfil Its Purpose?
Sort of. While it still features the same proven engine and gearbox as before, and it’s roomier than ever, obvious cost-cutting measures no longer make the Mazda CX-5 the non-hybrid sleeper of the compact crossover segment. Especially when, if you’re going for a mid-range-or-above model and can live with slightly less refined torsion beam rear suspension, you can walk across any Mazda showroom in America and buy a CX-50. It features either the same naturally-aspirated powertrain or a far punchier turbo motor, real buttons and knobs, nicer interior materials, and sharper styling. Better still, it’s price-competitive with the CX-5, meaning you can get a better car for not much more money.
In Canada, the situation’s more complicated. Tariffs sidelined the CX-50, leaving the new CX-5 as the sole Mazda compact crossover. If you want the best-handling model in its class, the CX-5 is still the one to have, but otherwise, this new decontented model faces some stiff competition. A Kia Sportage has far less fuss to its operation and comes with a ten-year warranty. A Toyota RAV4 has standard hybrid efficiency, a Mitsubishi Outlander feels like a weirdly smart bet for a non-hybrid model, a Volkswagen Tiguan is more richly appointed, a Subaru Forester rides oh-so-comfortably and has fantastic visibility, and that incoming next-generation Hyundai Tucson sure looks slick. It’s still worth driving a Mazda CX-5 to see if you can live with its annoyances, but when it comes to the second-most-expensive thing you’ll likely buy in your life behind a house, it shouldn’t annoy you. You deserve better for $50,190 as-tested.
What’s The Punctum Of The 2026 Mazda CX-5?
A real-life example of how solid fundamentals can be undermined by cost-cutting.
Top graphic image: Thomas Hundal
“Even though “Zoom-Zoom” was more than a decade ago..” More than 2 decades ago, and close to a quarter-century ago. I distinctly remember seeing an ad for a Protege5 in a movie theater with the zoom zoom zoom song, which I subsequently bought. MY2002. This review seems excessively nitpicky. “My hands are so small and its such an unreasonable stretch to move my thumb to use the steering wheel, thus I must suffer through the touchscreen.” C’mon. In the age of automatic climate control, I really am starting to care less about HVAC controls on a screen. The car buying masses have spoken and: 1) most/many of them are women, and 2) they basically want their car to work like a phone. The scroll wheel was technically and ergonomically superior, and any idiot could figure it out in 10 minutes. But most people are idiots. I don’t like it either, but Mazda has to sell more cars, and soon, before they go the way of Saab.
I have yet to talk to anyone, blue collar, white collar, male, female, older, younger, who wants touchscreen HVAC and similar.
I have known people to automatically rule out vehicles with excessive touchscreen controls.
A big reason I bought my GR86 despite the lack of utility is that it had buttons, no need to really use the touchscreen while driving at all (it can be shut off while still playing music and displaying GPS through the gauge screen) and the lack of telematics and nannies.
My mom wanted to trade her X5 in on something smaller a few years back. She was excited to drive the XC60, as she loved the Volvos she’d owned in the past. She vetoed it immediately based on the infotainment, and got a Macan. More touch capacitive controls than are ideal, but they’re backlit and like real buttons, they’re always in the same place.
Kudos to your mom. 🙂 I’m a Volvo guy and given a choice between an XC60 and a Macan, I’d go with the Porsche all day long too. 😉
We are one of those people. HVAC controls are one thing, as I agree, for me it’s mostly set to one temp and auto and forget it, however needing to use a menu with sub menus just to turn on windshield defrost or heated seats and steering wheel are super annoying when trying to drive. When the wife traded in her Subaru, that was a big “feature” we were happy to do without and shopped accordingly.
My 2011 3 said “Zoom-Zoom” on its center stack LCD every time I turned the key, but admittedly “Zoom-Zoom” was being retired around the dawn of Skyactiv and the death of the MS3.
Not impressed. Hopefully they don’t do this to the CX-50, which was already the better car it seems, but now is obviously the better choice.
If the screen was any larger, it would double as the windscreen. Maybe that’s the next evolution of this crappy, laggy screen based vehicle stage. Perhaps I should patent the idea of using the interior surface of all the glass as screen surface? I’m sure the trustworthy AI will do the actual steering and stopping of the vehicle.
My 2017 CX-5 has all of the necessary buttons and knobs, and just hit 55 kilomiles. I think I’ll keep it a while.
Sounds like Mazda just needs a bigger screen so those tiny virtual buttons can be larger …..
Stop giving them ideas! 😛
On the quality issues, is this coming from a different factory than the old one?
I believe these are still coming out one of their plants in Hiroshima. I always looked at that as an advantage for the CX-5, but anymore it seems to be a crapshoot. I’m sure Japan built cars have a lot more Chinese content nowadays, but I can say for certain that our 2014 CX-5 is much better put together than my 2018 3 built in Mexico. Japan vs Mexico supply chain example: The original brake pads lasted twice as long on the CX-5, and rotors still looked ok (changed them anyway). My Mexico supplied OEM brake rotors were crumbling away from rust in half the time and miles.
Fit and finish on interior and exterior panels is much better from Japan. Also, the paint from the Mexico built 3 is very disappointing, more so than usual for Mazda. They all chip if you look at them too hard, but all of my chips on the roof panel are spidering a little from corrosion, despite keeping it waxed, etc. The clearcoat is failing on the hatch spoiler trim, and the mismatch between the metal and plastic surfaces looks like a bad respray. That mismatch seems to have gotten worse over time, due to different rates of fading. When I got a new license plate recently, I was shocked at the color difference underneath. The Japan-built CX-5 has none of these paint issues.
This is sad. The buttons were a selling point for us buying a CX-30 last year. Just yesterday, the dealer offered to buy it and my wife was interested in upsizing one rung. TOUCHSCREEN CONTROLS ARE EVIL. Could still consider a CX-50, I guess. Would like a hybrid anyway.
I’m not sure why someone would buy this over the CX-50 hybrid or turbo. I really don’t understand why Mazda is selling both
CX-50 is US only, but I agree it’s strange they offer both here. I wonder if the opening graph of this article explains why: brand equity.
There was a graph at the beginning of the article? Did I miss it?
I meant paragraph, oops
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, that’s probably why but the CX5 and CX50 definitely seem to be stepping on each other’s toes
I was under the impression that the CX-50 was intended to replace the CX-5, but the 5 was still selling well enough despite its age that Mazda eventually decided to keep it going with a new generation.
I recall that various parties relayed that the CX-50 was somewhat un-Mazdalike when it came out, but the fact that now it seems more Mazdalike than the new CX-5 is sobering.
I assumed when they first came out with the CX-50 that the CX-5 would die off in a year or two (similar to the CX-30 taking over for the CX-3). But, with the CX-5 being their top seller, I think they (wisely) just decided to keep selling it here so long as the numbers stayed strong (and they did).
That being said, I was still a bit surprised they decided to develop and bring a new generation here, though when they started development, it still had a hefty lead over the CX-50 in sales. Now, its about 50-50, with the CX-50 partly helped by the CX-5 changeover, but the gap was already starting to close in the last couple model years.
There’s a cadre of consumers who’ll only trust vehicles made in Japan and would chose the CX-5 over the CX-50 for that reason alone because they consider the latter to be of lower quality.
9L per 100km combined? Out of a compact crossover with less than 200hp? The absolute fuck, Mazda?
I’m averaging 10L per 100km in a full size truck.
Is that a predominately highway cycle though? On paper, the CX-5 is average enough for its class, and the fuel economy numbers are pretty accurate in my experience (although I think my wife just got better than 7.5L/100km on a recent long work drive). 10L/100km is on the high side for full-size pickups at least on stated figures.
You have to remember this is a 12+ year old powertrain at this point, largely unchanged over that time. When it debuted in the CX-5 for the 2014MY, it was better than several of it competitors (and on par with the others). It has an extra 300-400lbs to lug around now, too, and AWD as the only option.
For sure, it’s no longer competitive by today’s standards. Our CX-90 gets better combined real-world mileage than our 2014 CX-5, and pretty much the same on highway only, with two extra cylinders and at least 1000lbs more. That’s impressive, but I don’t expect that powertrain to be 100% trouble free over the next 12 years like the CX-5 has been. I hope it proves me wrong.
I’d have no problem taking a few mpg hit knowing I’m going with a proven powertrain option. In all honesty, I don’t think your average buyer compares specs like fuel economy at all when making their buying decision. The ones who care are going to look for a hybrid option, and for the rest it just doesn’t matter, at least at the time of sale.
So much sense in what you’ve said MG. 🙂
After the issues with the touchscreen in my 2017 Mazda6 and a class action lawsuit for the thousands of others with the same issue, I wouldn’t trust a Mazda touchscreen interface. The fact that my local dealer won’t service anything over 10 years old also speaks poorly to them standing behind their vehicles. I still own my 2012 NC2 but I wouldn’t consider another Mazda at this point.
I recommended Mazda to a co-worker shortly after buying the Mazda6 before any issues surfaced. 4 years later she was experiencing the same touchscreen issue I encountered. I felt guilty for that.
Mazda was the one manufacturer we could trust for years to not engage in the touchscreen/haptic bullshit tomfoolery and they went and violated that trust. I think it’s going to be a bigger deal for them than they anticipated.
I can only hope they reverse course and make sure this doesn’t make it into any further models and is gone in the CX-5 for a mid-cycle refresh.
I just had one of these as a rental car last weekend and I pretty much agree–from the last CX-5 the only improvement was that they finally moved the damn cupholders forward so they’re not constantly in the way. It felt almost too nimble, like it was unsettled when I was driving it, and the lane centering / lane keeping features sucked, way worse than the previous generation and the CX-50. Moving the climate system to the little bar on the touchscreen made for terrible usability and it also handled in-between temperatures (it was 65-70deg over the weekend) really badly, auto climate couldn’t figure out whether it was trying to blow ice or fire. Fuel economy was okay but not great. On the plus side it was reasonably quiet and the infotainment had a neat feature where it collapsed the CarPlay map into the factory home screen (never seen that before) but this is still the first Mazda in a while I wouldn’t actually want to own.
Given how important this segment is, it sounds like scrappy Mazda may have shot themselves in the foot.
The whole system runs on CANBUS… there’s really nothing preventing anyone from installing physical controls. Of course, that requires knowledge of CANBUS programming, but if you already know your way around a microcontroller like an arduino (or go full-bore and do a Pi-based setup), using Claude to provide the assist on the CANBUS stuff should be simple.
Also, the physical controls could be whatever. A nintendo controller, a rubber chicken with a microswitch, a 12-inch dial for the volume, etc… you get the idea.
I want a Death Star panel (which is actually a 1970s TV switcher, so it can be done)
The primary consumers of this vehicle struggle to figure out self checkout lines in grocery stores.
Exactly what I want to do is design, engineer, and instal (somewhere ergonomic that won’t look bad . . . don’t see an obvious spot) basic controls that should be included for a brand new vehicle under warranty that screwing with CANBUS probably means violating the terms of.
Have you no sense of adventure? Of course not… those people bought Subarus instead.
Everyone has their own idea of adventure, I suppose, but I find that stuff tedious and I have no interest in dealing with software outside of work unless I really have to, particularly to fix some feature that should be standard (and had been for decades) on a basic daily. Some odd thing that only I’d want, sure, but I just won’t buy a product that’s a complete basic user interface failure. But, I’m a weirdo, so I don’t matter as much as the people buying these things who are unlikely to have the ability to realize that they could fix an OEM failure, then think up a solution, then execute it if they even have the time and motivation. The average person—most of which buy CUVs—are in awe when someone does the most basic DIY stuff, which amazes me in this age where people making incredible things on video are free to see on the internet along with instructions on how to do about anything, 3D printers are all but ubiquitous, etc.
Screen everything is just fine. If the UI is well designed, everything is at most two levels down and it’s snappy. I’m perfectly happy dailying a Model Y. But, a laggy screen with tiny icons is horrid. If this costs as much as a Tesla it better not have a laggy screen.
My old roommate has been driving Mazda’s for over a decade now. He bought a ’14 Mazda 3 Touring i hatch brand new in ’14, put 262,000 miles on it, sold it to me the spring of ’25 for 400 smackers and bought a ’24 CPO CX-5 Turbo AWD. He absolutely loves it.
He went and looked at one of these new CX-5’s, and he flat out told the salesguy ‘No physical controls, no turbo, not interested’. And apparently that has been a common theme amongst current CX-5 owners. A lot of folks are very ticked about the touchscreen tomfoolery.
I feel this generation of CX-5 is the Mazda equivalent of the 2012 Civic or 2013 Malibu – a total misstep that is likely to get corrected in short order.
I find it insanely baffling that Mazda went to a touchscreen only system when it’s been known for YEARS that customers ditched VW for their idiotic haptic system, and you know what the ’27 Tiguan, Taos and ID.3 have?
PHYISCAL CONTROLS FOR THE HVAC, RADIO AND HEATED SEATS.
This just underscores why modern cars have zero appeal for me. Too many gadgets, too many distractions, and the quality declines while the price keeps rising. Enough!
The only modern car I would remotely consider would be a CX-50 Hybrid, preferably in that beautiful metallic green Mazda has been offering… because it has physical controls for everything and isn’t overly complicated. But that’s gonna be a 5-7 years down the line when its well broken in and under 15k purchase.
So yeah, I predict the CX-5 sales will nosedive, and the Rogue is gonna gobble up those buyers until Mazda retrofits a system with physical controls next model year.
I always thought these looked about as elegant as a modern crossover could look, but now it looks bizarre. The front is huge, the rear is tiny, the wheels look minuscule and way too narrow, and is it the fact that I’m blind or does it sit noticeably higher in the back than the front? And Mazda is also the last company I would’ve imagined to abandon physical controls. Just a really weird series of misses for a company that’s usually very consistent.
Oh they made the CX-5 worse? I guess I’ll stay extra far away then.
I had a top trim one as a rental (even the rear seats were heated). On a trip from Ottawa to Burlington, my ass actually went numb. What an AWFUL set of seats.
I went from a 2008 Volvo C30 to a 2016 Mazda3. Talk about a HUGE downgrade in the seats department.
My mom had a 2001 V70 T5 when I was growing up, and I got to spend some time behind the wheel when I got my license. To this day, I have yet to sit in any car seats that were as comfortable as the Volvo’s.
187 hp for 3900 lbs? This thing is a rolling road block.
I’m dragging 6900lbs with 250hp, and I’m never in people’s way.
Laughs in ~275 HP and 30,000 pounds.
Don’t make me go fire up one of our 2-stroke Detroits!
My Honda Acty and its 38hp has entered the chat…. well, not yet. It’s on the way….here it comes….oh no a hilll….
Just get a running start when possible… just like my old ’79 VW camper. 😉
The article states a 0-60 is estimated at “a shade over eight seconds”. While not pulse-quickening, that’s a completely acceptable time. Most people meander down entrance ramps anyway.
I’m a big Mazda fan – I’ve owned three Protege/3’s, and my wife drives a CX-9 – but they’ve lost me with this generation of CX-5. Lack of physical controls is a hard no. My wife was considering downsizing her car and looked at a Mazda dealership and we walked right past the CX-5 to look at a CX-50, which we both liked.
I also hate Mazda’s me-too trend of replacing brand emblems with letters. Seems like they’re chasing trends instead of trying to stand out.
The worst part is that they’re chasing trends that are now going out of fashion. The TOUCHSCREEN ALL THE THINGS and SPELLED OUT LETTERS ARE PREMIUM! Was very 2021.
Yep
Jealous of your wife’s CX-9. 🙂
…and they axed the Turbo drivetrain. So bummed.
It’ll almost certainly return in the new CX-5 a year or two down the road.
Screens are still the A#1 leading cause of new purchase dissatisfaction. How are manufacturers missing this?
People want 4 knobs- 3 HVACs and a volume. Just fit that in your damn budget upfront.
Google lost $500 billion in value yesterday, and a big chunk of that was due to finally admitting their awkward, glitchy AI Mode searches are hurting profits.
You know that either customer unhappiness with bad interfaces shows up in early testing and it’s being blown off at the executive level, or else execs made it clear testing is not allowed to even consider the issue.
And once these bad interfaces go into production and customer unhappiness is out in the open, execs are doubling down on sunk cost fallacies to hold the line.
There are people who insist execs are purely analytical beings and any decision they make must be driven by a desire for profit. But they’re fully capable of no more good judgment than a five year old with a bag full of Halloween candy.
Google’s solution for the reduced profits is to run more ads apparently.
The new Rogue is more appealing than a new Mazda.
How the fuck did that end up happening?
Mazda got complacent, and frankly leaning on Toyota for tech sharing and guidance isn’t really doing them any favors, as Toyota has also rested on their laurels and their products are also now increasingly mediocre.
Nissan almost keeled over and their new CEO is full speed ahead, guns blazing and machete-ing their way out of the woods.
Nissan is motivated to succeed and actually being innovative.
Mazda is riding the quickly flattening crest of their wave that peaked in the ’14-’22 era and is now quickly losing its mojo as they chase tends rather than setting them, still riding on their proven but increasingly antiquated powertrains.
Frankly, the dumbest thing Ford and Mazda ever did was go their separate ways, and Ford suffered the loss first with not having the SkyActiv engines and brilliant 6 speed auto/manuals for the Fiesta, Focus and Fusion rather than the awful PowerShit and EcoBoom engines… but now Mazda is finally starting to feel the burn. Ford, at least, was really invested in building competent products together with Mazda; Toyota isn’t overly motivated for them to be successful, IMHO.
I’m a little less bullish on Nissan and less bearish on Toyota than what you’ve described but I agree on the Mazda assessment.
Toyota has gone plasticky on interiors and messed up the 3.4L but beyond that they are hitting dead center in multiple market segments. They’re mediocre to the Car and Driver crowd, but that’s nothing new and neither is consumer preference. I’ve been hearing the “resting on laurels” argument for 15 years now.
Nissan is a long way from hacking themselves out of the woods. They’ve started that way, but they’re still clinging to Jatco CVTs, their latest-and-greatest VC-turbo engine tech is a mess, the old NA engines are well behind the times, their lineup is limited, their US sales are half what they were a decade ago, and despite being in the EV game for years Toyota suddenly has more and better EV offerings while simultaneously dominating the hybrid market. Nissan interiors are nicer, though.
I’d love to see a resurgent Nissan that can go head-to-head with Honda and Toyota as they used to.
And poor Mazda? I hope they’ve got a big breakthrough coming. This CX-5 is not a good sign.
For whatever it’s worth, Nissan has developed the Jatco CVT into a dependable transmission (2019+). Among many improvements, they’ve improved cooling and have moved to metal chains instead of rubber belts, so it seems crazy to move away from a transmission that is seeing the benefit of incredible development costs.
Yeah, some of their cars like the Sentra don’t have the latest and greatest tech but it’s also $2k less than a comparable Civic. That might be 6 months of car payments for someone in this price bracket.
Curious what sources demonstrate the 2019+ is now reliable?
And what belt was rubber?
Mine was a 2012. They were first introduced in MY2007. It took 12 years to make them reliable? Mine died at 85K miles, at 6 years of age. 2019s are 6 years of age. Are we sure they’re reliable or have they just not hit the Failure Zone yet?
Anyway, after that I decided it was worth spending $2000 more MSRP to avoid $5000 in repairs.
2019 cars are now 7+ years old. I’d imagine that this is plenty long enough to have a more than adaquette high-mileage sample size. Consumer Reports gave 2020+ Rogues and 2018+ Altimas both receive an Above Average reliability ranking.
I get that you rightfully burned by your experience but the reality is that Nissan invested in fixing the problem, and by all accounts, has done so. The CVTs in current Nissan’s are simply nothing like those in the cars from a decade ago.
2007-2012 Altimas received an Above Average reliability rating by CR at about 6 years age as well. That’s why I bought one. I’m chuckling here because do you want to know what I told myself at the time? “These cars are 5-6 years old, I’d imagine that’s long enough to show up in CR if there’s a problem. 🙂
Over the next year or two that ranking began to dive as the CVT failures accumulated. Then they got even worse with the new generation in 2013.
But you’re probably right, I’m guessing they are ironed out by now given the black eye they received and the existential risk they were facing. But I’m also going to argue that consumers do not have the data sources they need to avoid this type of problem. Who saw Honda’s new widespread headgasket debacle coming, right?
I’m still furious at Mazda for cheaping out and going with a screen based system for practically everything. They went on and on about how controlling everything through a screen is bad, and that’s why they went with the knob input.
And now they’ve moved everything to a screen, and done it poorly! That steering wheel looks horrible and cheap. Like a kids toy, or a keyboard you’d see in a hospital where you have to be able to quickly wipe it down with a cloth.
Mazda was always a “premium” brand to me. The physical controls, and the quality of them, was a massive differentiator from other companies in the segment. Particularly Volkswagen and Subaru. Volkswagen and Subaru learned their lesson, and are moving back to physical buttons. What does Mazda do? They go to a screen, learning nothing from all the other conventional car companies who screwed it up. It would be one thing if it was a good interface, if it was fast and well designed. Clearly it isn’t. Every review has complained about how small the controls are, and how annoying they are to use.
I’m worried about the next gen Miata and Mazda3. If they go down a similar path for their future redesigns… yikes. Just a big yikes.
Also the rear end is ugly and overcomplicated. The previous generation CX-5 look better, inside and out. Even the CX-50 is better, and that’s an odd, plastic cladded “rugged” variant.
Gosh I’m just so disappointed.
Subaru has always been trash, but Mazda has never been a premium brand. Nice styling and interiors sure, but the cars were always rusty cheap metal, with soft dynamics and sub par lifespans on the turbo drivetrains.
Star Trek (especially TNG) was cool. RIP Patrick Stewart. We all wanted to live in that future. What we are realizing we don’t want from that future is ITTY BITTY TOUCH CONTROLS ON A SCREEN. GIVE ME KNOBS AND BUTTONS. MAKE IT SO.
LCARS looks great, right up until the moment the Romulans are firing a full spread of quantum torpedoes, the ship is violently shaking and the touchscreen control for phasers is right next to the control to eject the warp core. Oh, and the illumination on the panel keeps randomly cutting out.
The panels also blow up awfully frequently from weapons fire that doesn’t even get through the shields for some reason. Apparently surge protector technology didn’t keep up. They could also use some seatbelts. Lotta 24th century Workman’s Comp claims from random redshirts flying out of their unrestrained chairs.
i liked original. voyager. enterprise. Never warmed to TNG. I try again.
I liked the ladies on TNG (Tasha Yar, Deana Troi, Dr. Crusher) but I was in my 30s at the time, so that’s not a surprise.